The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-50460•United States v. Reyes-Cardona
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
No. 20-50460
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Hector Reyes-Cardona,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-2829-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Hector Reyes-Cardona appeals his sentence of 21 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues
that the recidivism enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 22, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-50460 Document: 00515683046 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2020
No. 20-50460
2
unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable
statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment
nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is
foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for
summary affirmance, asserting that Reyes-Cardona’s argument is foreclosed.
The parties are correct that Reyes-Cardona’s assertion is foreclosed
by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th
Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir.
2007). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-50460 Document: 00515683046 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2020
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.